Postgrad Med J. 2026 Jan 13:qgaf239. doi: 10.1093/postmj/qgaf239. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: In 2024, the UK Foundation Programme Office introduced Preference Informed Allocation (PIA) to replace the Educational Performance Measure and Situational Judgement Test (SJT) for allocating Foundation Year 1 (FY1) posts. This study evaluates FY1 doctors’ perceptions of PIA’s fairness and effectiveness.
METHODS: A nationwide survey was distributed to FY1 doctors following induction (n = 9702 eligible). Perceptions on PIA fairness, SJT removal, and Specialised Foundation Programme (SFP) allocation were collected using a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Quantitative data were analysed using non-parametric statistics, and free-text responses were examined using reflexive thematic analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 1340 FY1s responded (13.8%), representing graduates from 56 medical schools. Overall, 75.2% received their first-choice foundation school, and 91.5% were placed within their top five. Most respondents disagreed that PIA was equitable (median 2 [IQR 1-3]) or should be used for SFP allocation (median 2 [IQR 1-3]), but agreed they were pleased not to have taken the SJT [median 4 (IQR 3-5)]. UK trained graduates and younger, white respondents viewed PIA less favourably than international, older, and minority-ethnic graduates. Thematic analysis emphasized loss of perceived control, calls for greater transparency, and preferences for merit-based or hybrid allocation models.
CONCLUSIONS: While PIA maintained high first-choice placements, concerns about fairness were prominent, particularly among UK graduates. Many respondents favoured reintroducing merit-based components. Continued evaluation is needed to ensure a fair, transparent, and acceptable allocation process for future graduates. Key messages What is already known on this topic: The UK Foundation Programme Office replaced performance-based allocation with preference informed allocation (PIA) in 2024, aiming to improve fairness, reduce stress, and align placements with applicant preferences. However, graduate perceptions of this change have not been fully explored. What this study adds: Most respondents disagreed that PIA was a fair allocation system and opposed its use for the specialized foundation programme, particularly younger, white, and UK graduates. Many expressed preferences for reintroducing merit-based elements, such as a standardized clinical examination. How this study might affect research, practice, or policy: The findings highlight the need for ongoing evaluation of the PIA system to ensure fairness, transparency, and acceptability among medical graduates, and may help inform future postgraduate allocation reforms.
PMID:41527827 | DOI:10.1093/postmj/qgaf239
